Why is it bad to harm somebody? If I thought it was good to harm somebody, why would I be wrong?

I keep seeing this quote, how about this MM, but before I provide the hypothetical, you are NOT allowed to use your religion, god, or bible as a means of morality.

Now for the hypothetical:What would you do if I flew to Australia tonight, broke into your home, injured you, and robbed you of all of your possessions? How would you feel? Is it right? Wrong? Why do you think so?

If you stop at deciding we have no argument. My question is weather you can act to stop an action without saying your morality is better with respect to X standard. If you can't, by what means do you measure your morality vs someone else's?

I bolded the part you left out. Deliberately left out, it must be, since I've pointed out this problem already. Complete your damned question.

I realize that with skeptic joining the conversation things have quickly expanded since last time I was on... If you have any interest yet, here is my response. With respect to X standard could be put on the end. I left it off to illustrate that without a standard, measuring your morality makes little sense. But my question remains...

Logged

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Considering that Christians are responsible for stopping slavery, it should be obvious that Christians are the ones with good morals. Sure, an atheist may hate slavery, but this comes from the Christian worldview.

Christians were also responsible for promoting and defending slavery. You can't take ownership of one without taking ownership of the other. Well, you could, but not without blatantly lying. It's a matter of rather clear historical record. For example:

Quote from: Declaration of Causes; State of Texas, February 2, 1861; https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

From later in the same document:

Quote from: Declaration of Causes; State of Texas, February 2, 1861; https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

Economic interests provided the material justification for slavery in the U.S., but there really isn't any question that Christianity provided the moral justification.

I realize that with skeptic joining the conversation things have quickly expanded since last time I was on... If you have any interest yet, here is my response. With respect to X standard could be put on the end. I left it off to illustrate that without a standard, measuring your morality makes little sense. But my question remains...

Lots of standards exist. Indicate one already. Do you mean "with respect to their own personal standards"? Because that will yield an answer. Do you mean "with respect to a god's standards?" Then that would yield another answer, if such a god exists - or even if it doesn't, but its standard has been conceived of, as in the case of real-world religions.

If you refuse to indicate a standard, then I take it that you know you're wrong and are just trying to avoid admitting such.

A theist would say that Rape is bad because it is immoral according to God's truth. In other words, rape is bad because the statement: Rape is Bad. Is and has always been true.

1) Is every moral truth revealed by Yahweh identical now to when it was first revealed?

2) How is Yahweh's preference for particular morals anything more than his preference vs. ours?

1) I do not think that the full moral truth has been revealed to humanity, however I do believe it exists. 2) God's "preferences" are the required absolutes of the universe. God's truth about morality is no more or less than God's truth about how particles interact.

Merged your questions with my answers to show how you neatly sidestepped the answers.

1) So what you are saying is that - for the entirety of the Bible, and for all the years afterwards, we are not following god's full moral truth? So you would potentially agree that - perhaps - killing IS moral, we just haven't had that part of the "full moral truth" revealed to us yet?

2) Sure. But still preferences. So why does that make them any different for the "coke vs pepsi" debate you make it out to be? Big difference between morality, and particle interaction, is that you can't transgress the latter. Its an immutable fact, rather than a preference. I may "prefer" that I can walk through walls - but that can't happen. I may "prefer" to steal - and that CAN happen. You're comparing apples and teacups.

Let's say an old lady takes 1,000 dollars out of the bank and you hit her over the head with a bat and steal the money and get away with no witnesses. You just got 1,000 bucks! Wouldn't you be happy?

Me personally? No. Because I'd be thinking about the lady I hurt. Partly wanted to get that stated so you cannot sidetrack with a "see? You DON'T have any morals", and partly because it comes into play later on this post.

The "problem of morality" can tend to be as big as the "problem of evil" for believers. In the absence of an objective morality, why IS something moral, and something else not? Most people say "it is wrong to thump people and take their cash", some say "it is right to thump people and take their cash".

In the OT, of course - and admittedly throughout history - it is okay to thump people and take their cash/children as slaves depending on who the people are. Which is why very few civilisations - and why Yahweh himself - have not expressed an objective morality, but merely a subjective one. Yep, even god, because his morality is a person preference of what HE thinks is right for HIM, but which he would not want to happen to him.

Take your example of "thump someone and take their stuff away". Terrible thing to do, right? Except.....didn't Yahweh do just that in the flood? He demonstrates the biggest problem with damn near all subjective moralities - that they are not reciprocal.

Back to your example again. The thief there clearly thinks that "thump and steal" is fine. But would he think that "thump and steal" was still fine if two minutes later someone with a bigger stick walloped HIM and took the money? Willing to bet he would not, precisely because his morality is subjective, a one-way morality. Its why all theistic moralities ultimately fail, demonstrating themselves to be significantly flawed.

Morality - to me - has to flow both ways. If it is okay for me to thump and steal, it must be just as okay for me to be thumped and robbed. But if that were the agreed morality, the human race would never have developed past a big strong guy sitting in a cave: one generation only, because he wouldn't want his offspring to grow up and thump him.

So the reciprocal morality has also to be one that follows the Golden Rule - to treat others in the way you would want to be treated in their place. Yes, Jesus said it….a few hundred years after the Chinese first expressed it, but hey, no points lost for unoriginality! Shame Yahweh's original morality didn't have those sentiments, but he's only the supreme being after all, can't expect him to get things right first time round.

And such a morality - to treat others the way you would want to be treated - is about as objective as it can get. Because it allows for everyone to be treated fairly and equally no matter what their circumstance. You get no benefit from being richer or bigger or faster because the morality is bidirectional.

THAT is the morality of the atheist. Superior to the morality of the theist because it applies to everyone, across the board.

You see, if I believed that this life was just an audition for an afterlife, that existed for all of eternity, I wouldn't really be concerned about suffering that happens during the relative blink of time that we exist on planet earth. I might feel a little tiny twinge of pain, like I do when I deny my daughter a piece of chocolate that she really really really wants. I mean, she is suffering during those minutes before dinner. But care about her. Not just her immediate gratification, but her long-term nutrition. If I thought she was just auditioning for heaven, I wouldn't care about her long-term health.

But you see, I don't think that she is auditioning for anything. I think that this is her only life. And I want it to be long. I want her to be healthy and happy.

For every human being on planet earth, I believe that this is our one and only life. And because of that, I am concerned about human suffering. I believe that every human being has the right to access healthy food, clean water, to have a comfortable home, and even to seek joy and contribute to humanity.

I work to help people rebuild their lives BECAUSE I value this life. If I thought that this life was just a blink of an eye in relationship to an eternity of playing harps on clouds, I would feel no more empathy for torture survivors than I do for my daughter during the minutes that she is denied a cookie while I'm preparing dinner.

I care about the well-being of human beings BECAUSE I believe that this life is valuable.

I care about the well-being of our planet because I believe that future generations of human beings should not inherit the aftermath of this generation's greed.

I care about institutionalized greed and exploitation because I believe that human beings should not benefit from the exploitation of other human beings.

I do care about the "victims." I care about the victims because I don't get to dismiss their pain as part of god's plan, or a special test that they are being given by some pathologically cruel deity, who is probably going to reward them later, if they pass the test. I don't get to dismiss their plight as some sort of karmic punishment for bad deeds in a previous life.

So, Big Bang is your current belief, but it could be wrong in 100 years and people 100 years form now will be going, "Can you believe those idiots believe din the Big Bang? LOL!"

One hundred years ago, everyone believed that there was only one galaxy in the universe. We now know this to be false. (Very false.) I am not aware of anyone who believes that astrophysicists from 100 years ago were idiots. They drew the logical conclusion from the information available to them, and when new information became available, they recognized that the conclusion they had drawn was incorrect and discarded it.

I echo Quesi's post, but this highlights a point about some theists, for whom I know quite a few. That is, anything you ever do off your own back is never done with sincerity, with humility and with the idea of being good to your fellow man for the sake of at least pleasing that other person. You're only acting "good" because you see it as the way god wants you to behave, and that really, you are useless turd of a person why can't act kindly off his own back. Everything we do is bad and any good we do is not down to us, but god. You really do have a gutter view of yourself and humanity, don't you? You're better than this, and you're better than this arse of a god.

I am suspect of whether you are a Poe, but if you're not, I don't know whether to slap you or pity you.

But, it is a belief because you have no idea if the Big Bang will be accepted in 100 years from now. Science has changed its tune more often than we change our underwear.

So, Big Bang is your current belief, but it could be wrong in 100 years and people 100 years form now will be going, "Can you believe those idiots believe din the Big Bang? LOL!"

It doesn't matter. Scientists could discover tomorrow that the big bang theory is completely and utterly wrong. That, in no way, gives you the right to automatically insert your god into the equation. The time to posit a god-being is when there is direct, demonstrable evidence for a god-being.

If you are trying to convince atheists that your god exists, argue it on its own merits instead of trying to poke holes in the atheist's beliefs (especially if those beliefs really have nothing to do with their atheism).

One hundred years ago, everyone believed that there was only one galaxy in the universe. We now know this to be false. (Very false.) I am not aware of anyone who believes that astrophysicists from 100 years ago were idiots. They drew the logical conclusion from the information available to them, and when new information became available, they recognized that the conclusion they had drawn was incorrect and discarded it.

I, for one, certainly don't see them as idiots. They're the giants in the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants." Without their work, in an age of far less precise equipment, we wouldn't be where we are today.

And just as it's turtles all the way down, it's giants all the way up.

But, it is a belief because you have no idea if the Big Bang will be accepted in 100 years from now. Science has changed its tune more often than we change our underwear.

So, Big Bang is your current belief, but it could be wrong in 100 years and people 100 years form now will be going, "Can you believe those idiots believe din the Big Bang? LOL!"

It doesn't matter. Scientists could discover tomorrow that the big bang theory is completely and utterly wrong. That, in no way, gives you the right to automatically insert your god into the equation. The time to posit a god-being is when there is direct, demonstrable evidence for a god-being.

If you are trying to convince atheists that your god exists, argue it on its own merits instead of trying to poke holes in the atheist's beliefs (especially if those beliefs really have nothing to do with their atheism).

Should I just assume that an atheist has no beliefs at all, then?I just want to know what atheists believe but all I get is stammering and avoiding telling me what they DON'T believe instead of what they DO believe.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

But, it is a belief because you have no idea if the Big Bang will be accepted in 100 years from now. Science has changed its tune more often than we change our underwear.

So, Big Bang is your current belief, but it could be wrong in 100 years and people 100 years form now will be going, "Can you believe those idiots believe din the Big Bang? LOL!"

It doesn't matter. Scientists could discover tomorrow that the big bang theory is completely and utterly wrong. That, in no way, gives you the right to automatically insert your god into the equation. The time to posit a god-being is when there is direct, demonstrable evidence for a god-being.

If you are trying to convince atheists that your god exists, argue it on its own merits instead of trying to poke holes in the atheist's beliefs (especially if those beliefs really have nothing to do with their atheism).

Why bother placing your faith in something that could be wrong tomorrow? Seems like a foundation built on sand during a tsunami.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Should I just assume that an atheist has no beliefs at all, then?I just want to know what atheists believe but all I get is stammering and avoiding telling me what they DON'T believe instead of what they DO believe.

We believe all sorts of different things, which is why you don't find a belief system for atheists. You think there's one where there is not. The ONLY thing that we all agree on is the lack of belief in gods. All else is up for debate.

Should I just assume that an atheist has no beliefs at all, then?I just want to know what atheists believe but all I get is stammering and avoiding telling me what they DON'T believe instead of what they DO believe.

We believe all sorts of different things, which is why you don't find a belief system for atheists. You think there's one where there is not. The ONLY thing that we all agree on is the lack of belief in gods. All else is up for debate.

I never said they ALL have a belief system. I'm curious what the INDIVIDUAL atheist believes.

Care to share what YOU believe? Forget about everyone else.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

But, it is a belief because you have no idea if the Big Bang will be accepted in 100 years from now. Science has changed its tune more often than we change our underwear.

So, Big Bang is your current belief, but it could be wrong in 100 years and people 100 years form now will be going, "Can you believe those idiots believe din the Big Bang? LOL!"

It doesn't matter. Scientists could discover tomorrow that the big bang theory is completely and utterly wrong. That, in no way, gives you the right to automatically insert your god into the equation. The time to posit a god-being is when there is direct, demonstrable evidence for a god-being.

If you are trying to convince atheists that your god exists, argue it on its own merits instead of trying to poke holes in the atheist's beliefs (especially if those beliefs really have nothing to do with their atheism).

Why bother placing your faith in something that could be wrong tomorrow? Seems like a foundation built on sand during a tsunami.

If the foundation is properly reinforced anything can withstand a tsunami, it may take some damage, but all you have to do is repair the damage.

The same thing goes for a scientific theory, it may take damage, but all the scientists have to do is adjust the theory to fit the new evidence. That's just how it works, the same way you repair a tsunami stricken area and better prepare it for the next, you adjust a scientific theory to be better prepared for new evidence.

You do not, and cannot, force the evidence/tsunami, to fit/work around, a theory or building.

But, it is a belief because you have no idea if the Big Bang will be accepted in 100 years from now. Science has changed its tune more often than we change our underwear.

So, Big Bang is your current belief, but it could be wrong in 100 years and people 100 years form now will be going, "Can you believe those idiots believe din the Big Bang? LOL!"

It doesn't matter. Scientists could discover tomorrow that the big bang theory is completely and utterly wrong. That, in no way, gives you the right to automatically insert your god into the equation. The time to posit a god-being is when there is direct, demonstrable evidence for a god-being.

If you are trying to convince atheists that your god exists, argue it on its own merits instead of trying to poke holes in the atheist's beliefs (especially if those beliefs really have nothing to do with their atheism).

Should I just assume that an atheist has no beliefs at all, then?I just want to know what atheists believe but all I get is stammering and avoiding telling me what they DON'T believe instead of what they DO believe.

You're still not clear on anything. You seem to think that "beliefs" are a core requirement for being human. And in a later post, you wondered what we had "faith" in. Again, you're not clear on things.

None of my "beliefs" (and I don't deny that I have some) are etched in stone. Right now, most astronomers and physicists think that all their research points to the big bang thing. Other possibilities are being explored. If it is found that something else happened instead, then golly gee, something else happened instead.

We are not searching for ultimate answers. We are searching for plausible ones that will help us explain reality overall. We don't pretend to be exactly on target. We can only go with what we can see, measure, detect or mathematically theorize. With new info coming in every day, it is inevitable that current ideas will be modified, and in some cases totally thrown out. So our beliefs about what is true are subject to modification, based on new information. I'm not in the mood to apologize about that.

And faith? I have some in my friends. I have some faith in my old truck. I just found out a few minutes that my faith in my chain saw was misplace. It is dead. And not worth fixing. But my faith isn't shaken. I'll just update it. It is not important that everything we know be treated as fact. The stuff that is clearly factual, like we have to eat or die; that stuff we know. The exact conditions on the ground on Europa? Not so much. Whatever we find out about that moon of Jupiter is going to be great to know, but hardly necessary. We expect the truth to be fluid, because we've chosen not to voluntary freeze it in time.

Your basis for existence is apparently your beliefs and your faith. Neither of those things are important enough to base my entire life on. I'll stick with the parts where I kind of need to eat, sleep, stay warm and be nice to those around me. The big picture, the one that science reveals more and more of on a daily basis, is interesting all the time, fascinating most of the time and astonishing some of the time. But it is not my definition of the "truth". I have no expectation that we will ever know enough to make that claim.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

If you want beliefs that will survive choose evolution which is based on evidence.

As opposed to evolution which isn't based on evidence?

Punctuation is important.

Evolution is a fact.

Accept it or be the laughing stock of your descendants for as long as they remember you.

magicmiles was joking. He was referring to your lack of punctuation. Here's what your sentence should've looked like:If you want beliefs that will survive, choose evolution, which is based on evidence.

If you want beliefs that will survive choose evolution which is based on evidence.

As opposed to evolution which isn't based on evidence?

Punctuation is important.

Evolution is a fact.

Accept it or be the laughing stock of your descendants for as long as they remember you.

Hmm. It appears I need to be more specific with you. Fair enough.

The statement of yours which I quoted required a comma after the word 'evolution' in order for it to convey the meaning you intended. Without the comma, your statement can be taken to mean that there is more than one type of evolution, and that people should choose the type which has evidence.

I believe I am a living contradiction of this guy's claim. Those who have known me since I joined this forum have known me both as a believer and a non-believer. I would hope no one would say I am any less of "good person" now than I was before I jumped the theist ship.

I believe I am a living contradiction of this guy's claim. Those who have known me since I joined this forum have known me both as a believer and a non-believer. I would hope no one would say I am any less of "good person" now than I was before I jumped the theist ship.

Considering what you've shared about your situation and your perseverance in the face of daunting circumstances, I agree. The guy in the OP is arguing against a strawman in his own head. The reality of atheism is considerably more nuanced.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

Sounds like you're the one with "a heart full of hatred." Why are you such a hater? Even Jesus said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." The things of the Spirit are foolishness to the natural man, so why does this come as such a surprise to you?

I'd like to hear your testimony, if you'll send me a PM. Bashing atheists is not the way to win friends and influence people. If you read the New Testament, Jesus bashed the religious folks, not the unbelievers.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin